HELP US VOICE FOR THE CAUSE OF THE HIMALAYAN REGION AND BEYOND !

Follow by Email

June 5, 2012

[Reposted below with a videois an article by an author who has published milestone publications on social change and development in Nepal. In this article the author has prescribed a 'multicultural federalism' with 'functional base on co-operation' or 'co-operative federalism' for Nepal. However, the author has not explained how his model of federalism (संघियता) would function; he has been able to paint a picture of the country how "splitting federal units from north to south" may look like. He says any such 'north-south units' may be renamed Mahendralism (महेन्द्रलियता) or -Birendralism (वीरेन्द्रलियता) with some cosmetics varnished on it by Congress-UML-Maoists and which will not be federalism in essence. Should such federalism "not address the core issue of multiculturalism with autonomy and the right to self-determination" - that would not work, he says. He further argues, "federalism that has its 'functional base on co-operation' or a 'cooperative federalism' only could provide a platform for dialogue so as to sustain development, cooperation and harmony in the country." But his naming of MangolKirats (मंगोल-किरात) for indigenous people(आदिवासी जनजाति)may be disputed as 'Mongol' comes from Mongolia which was founded by Jhenghis Khan only in 1206 whereas Kirats were in the mountains of present Nepal long before the Vedas were written. Similarly he should have noticed the Magars being mentioned in The Mahabharat and few other Purans also. And also proportional representative federal structure for Nepal was first suggested by M. S. Thapa Magar, the current president of Rashtriya Janamukti Partry and not what the author has mentioned in the article. The current definition and characteristics for the indigenous peoples of Nepal encompass the United Nation's definition and characteristics for the indigenous peoples of the world. - Editor]

By
Govinda Neupane

When I was finally
editing my first book, "सामाजिक विकासको विवेचना" - "Samajik
Bikashko Vivechana" (Discourse on Social Development), I realized there was a need for betterknowing the composition and characteristics of
colorful indigenous nationalities of Nepal and the way they could build better
social harmony. It was in the year of 1999.

I began preparing notes
on nationalities, social compositions, contrasting values and behaviors, and
ways and means to address existing prevalent discriminations so as to make
Nepal a harmonious place to live in.

Once, I even thought of
quitting the job as studying, analyzing and determining the nature, numbers and
historical context of different nationalities are too complex and
controversial. However, I got into it as I had done some exercises already.
Reviewing for months of literatures on the indigenous peoples of Nepal available
at that time, I prepared three working papers – a) nationalities in Nepal:
their composition and standing, b) relationships among them, and, c)
superstructure that provides platform for mutually beneficial and harmonious
partnership.

I encountered hostile
circumstances as many experts, leaders, activists and professionals had highly
diverse views on nationalities and many among them were disapproving off any
superstructure that would challenge the one existing at that time. A large majority
among this crowd was too critical of federalism as they considered that structure of governance would disintegrate Nepal. They discouraged me saying
that exercise on such issue would not benefit the country. But I continued my fieldwork
for another six months and arrived at a conclusion that the hostile crowd was
that of Khasa, the ruling nationality. Many among the leaders of Khasa origin
of all major parties were against multiculturalism and federalism.

After a year, I
concluded that there were five nationalities in Nepal – Khasas, Madhesis,
MangolKirats, Dalits and Newars. I was undecided whether to use the term MangolKirats.
Many intellectuals from among indigenous groups were using the term Janajati (जनजाति) that has included MangolKirats also. Janak Lal Sharma had first used the
term MangolKirats. Harsha Bahadur Budha had used the term Kirats simply to
introduce the Magars. In my first draft, I had used Kirats only. However, after
consultations with some of the authorities including Parshu Ram Tamang on indigenous people of Nepal, I was
convinced that the term MangolKirats better suits to introduce the nationalities
of Nepal. Although, several advances have been made in researching on the
nationalities' composition in Nepal, still there exist differences not
consensus. It may take some more years or decades, which may seem natural.
However, after a decade of that research, I am now convinced that the findings
of that research are correct.

In the past decade, my
book, "The Nationalities Question in
Nepal: Social Composition and Partnership Building through Multiculturalism and
Federalism" has been widely used as reference material to discuss prevailing socio-political
discrimination in Nepal. It has received wide acclaim in the area of the study on
discrimination against the indigenous nationalities.

The decade-long Civil
War brought many upheavals in the country. The values, belief systems and
practices had to pass through scrutiny. Several old values were discarded,
belief systems were challenged and the society had gone through painful process
of initial restructuring. However, the process got stuck when the Maoists
entered into a new path that included negotiations, ‘give and take’ and
compromises. When the Maoists changed their strategies, they needed different
political traits that had similar value ingredients as that of their new
brethren, the Congress and CPN (UML). Hence, the process of societal
transformation faced new road blocks ahead as the lead-role-actor disappeared
from the scene. Thus, the Maoists became friendlier to status quo and gradually
sidelined themselves from what that they needed to confront against; the creamy
layer of the society including the most influential Khasa politico-intellectual
fraternity.

Many agencies led by
oppressed nationalities and their activists either were trapped by the
Khasa-led politico-governance or mechanism or by the western donors as their
projects. Now, on the horizon, there are not many agencies or individuals
available who truly represent the oppressed nationalities to secure their
rights. Krishna Bhattachan and a few scholars and activists like him could be
seen in the wilderness defending the cause, still putting their
intellectual richness, energy and time to champion the cause for an egalitarian
Nepali society that is free from prejudices and discrimination.

In this context, new
breeds of champions of federalism have emerged. They are the yesteryear's
die-hard opponents of federalism, which include the Nepali Congress and UML leaders.
Many professors and professionals that were anti-federalism, are now raising
voices for federalism. However, their model of federalism is the second edition
of Panchayati Geophysical Map Works of zones or regions. Pasting few colours
and cosmetics, they labour to reintroduce the same Panchayati politico-administrative
mechanism in the name of federalism.

Why is federalism considered a need for Nepal?

The oppressed nationalities had concerns in three
primary areas – cultural identity, end of discriminatory practices against the nationalities
in governance, opportunities and access to national resources. To address these
concerns, they raised voice for multiculturalism and federalism (संघियता). Putting
together these two attributes with geography, economic viability and
governance, the appropriate federal model could be evolved. However, the new
Mullahs of federalism are now advocating for splitting federal units from
north to south to suit and serve their interests. It may be renamed Mahendralism (महेन्द्रलियता)or -Birendralism (वीरेन्द्रलियता) with some cosmetics varnished on it by Nepali Congress-UML-Maoists and which will not be
federalism in essence; should it not address the core issue of multiculturalism with autonomy and the right to self-determination. Moreover,
federalism that has its functional base on co-operation or a
cooperative federalism - only could provide a platform for dialogue so as to sustain development, cooperation
and harmony in the country.

Now, there is a
commission that is tasked for recommending a suitable model of federalism.
Before concluding any meaningful discussion inside the commission, the
coordinator of the commission has started speaking of Mahendralism (महेन्द्रलियता)or Birendralism (वीरेन्द्रलियता).
This is another futile exercise that would simply legitimatize the covert plans
and designs of the Khasa leaders. Without addressing the core issue of
multiculturalism, any state restructuring exercise would not address the aspirations
of oppressed nationalities and thus not solve the problem in the long run.

Now, the 'transformative
socio-political and economic course or force' has been put in the back burner. It is very
unfortunate frankly. The interests of working classes, oppressed nationalities
and marginalized sections should receive proper attention and priority. If that does
not happen, the radical 'social transformative force' would get more accelerated sooner or later and there would be doldrums in the country again. The wise can
see it, the average person can sense it and the fools do not have any idea about what to do next.
Irrespective of having any idea or no idea, the radical force would surface and follow coercion
which seems inevitable.